September 2, 2007

If this AP "news" article had been an online debate, Godwin's Law would have been invoked in the first 100 words.

The Associated Press reminded us on Saturday, September 1, the 68th Anniversary of Nazi Switzerland's invasion of Poland, that the Swiss are still a bunch of Nazis. Let us never forget how the Swiss Nazi juggernaut steamrollered across Europe and is just waiting to pounce once again:

GENEVA - The campaign poster was blatant in its xenophobic symbolism: Three white sheep kicking out a black sheep over a caption that read "for more security." The message was not from a fringe force in Switzerland's political scene but from its largest party.

The nationalist Swiss People's Party is proposing a deportation policy that anti-racism campaigners say evokes Nazi-era practices. Under the plan, entire families would be expelled if their children are convicted of a violent crime, drug offenses or benefits fraud.

The party is trying to collect the 100,000 signatures needed to force a referendum on the issue. If approved in a referendum, the law would be the only one of its kind in Europe.

"We believe that parents are responsible for bringing up their children. If they can't do it properly, they will have to bear the consequences," Ueli Maurer, president of the People's Party, told The Associated Press.

Ronnie Bernheim of the Swiss Foundation against Racism and Anti-Semitism said the proposal was similar to the Nazi practice of "Sippenhaft" — or kin liability — whereby relatives of criminals were held responsible for his or her crimes and punished equally.

Similar practices occurred during Stalin's purges in the early days of the Soviet Union and the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution in China, when millions were persecuted for their alleged ideological failings.

"As soon as the first 10 families and their children have been expelled from the country, then things will get better at a stroke," said Maurer, whose party controls the Justice Ministry and shares power in an unwieldy coalition that includes all major parties.

He explained that his party has long campaigned to make deportation compulsory for convicted immigrants rather than an optional and rarely applied punishment.

The party claims foreigners — who make up about 20 percent of the population — are four times more likely to commit crimes than Swiss nationals.

Bernheim said the vast majority of Switzerland's immigrants are law-abiding and warned against generalizations.

"If you don't treat a complicated issue with the necessary nuance and care, then you won't do it justice," he said.

Commentators have expressed horror over the symbolism used by the People's Party to make its point.

"This way of thinking shows an obvious blood-and-soil mentality," read one editorial in the Zurich daily Tages-Anzeiger, calling for a broader public reaction against the campaign.

So far, however, there has been little popular backlash against the posters.

"We haven't had any complaints," said Maurer.

The city of Geneva — home to Switzerland's humanitarian traditions as well as the European headquarters of the United Nations and the U.N. Refugee Agency, or UNHCR — said the campaign was likely to stir up intolerance.

The UNHCR said the law would run contrary to the U.N. refugee convention, of which Switzerland is a signatory.

But observers say the People's Party's hardline stance on immigration could help it in the Oct. 21 national elections. In 2004, the party successfully campaigned for tighter immigration laws using the image of black hands reaching into a pot filled with Swiss passports.

"It's certainly no coincidence that the People's Party launched this initiative before the elections," said Oliver Geden, a political scientist at the Berlin Institute for International and Security Affairs.

He said provocative campaigns such as this had worked well for the party in the past.

"The symbol of the black sheep was clearly intended to have a double meaning. On the one hand there's the familiar idea of the black sheep, but a lot of voters are also going to associate it with the notion of dark-skinned drug dealers," said Geden.

The party also has put forward a proposal to ban the building of minaret towers alongside mosques. And one of its leading figures, Justice Minister Christoph Blocher, said he wants to soften anti-racism laws because they prevent freedom of speech.

Clearly, their support for freedom of speech proves that Nazi blood still runs thick in Swiss veins.

60 comments:

I guess this is just Hitler's Revenge. The man and his regime slaughtered 6 million Jews and now the countries who fought him to the death are held to blame.

(Godwin's Law has now been satisifed for this thread.)

I am now officially fed up with any argument that proceeds with the claim that the USA (or Switzerland, Britain, or any other white country) can't follow through with Policy X (often though not always related to immigration) because it's "racist." My first response will always be "name three non-white countries that are as welcoming to whites as all white countries are to non-whites.

If they can't name three - I doubt they could even name one - then I am done with them. And we should all be.

It's not that we aren't "racist" to some degree - it's that everyone else is far more so. My cousin, an "anti-racism activist" who spent time in Africa, fondly recalls stories of being called some African language term for "whitey," without even drawing the connection. Poor girl.

it seems to be settled law that rights related to due process apply to non-citizens.

Oh really? And who "settled" that law exactly? Anyone I voted for? Anyone any other citizen voted for? Or is it a policy opposed by unelected judges who seem keen on either expanding their own power, on using the legal system to further their political aims, or who are excessively naive about the faults and frailties of using a system designed for occasional civil and legal matters when the matter at hand in fact relates to a full-scale invasion.

If 50 million Chinese Army soldiers stormed ashore tomorrow at, say, San Francisco, would we have to give every last damn one of them their due process rights and a full trial plus 18 appeals, or would we be allowed to shoot them on sight? And if the latter can you imagine all the post-war documentaries on the horrors inflicted on legal Chinese citizens of the USA by the evil American government that didn't bother to check whether the people they were shooting were American citizens or Chinese soldiers?

I am no lawyer for certain, but whatever the legal niceties of the matter two things are certian: 1) Survival is the first imperative, and 2) when faced with any problem, especially with a threat to survival, the solution must rise to the level of the problem.

That means that you can't give full trial by jury (plus appeals) to every last damn one of the 15 million people illegally in this country. It means that, while they're awaiting trials, hearings or whatever that you can't release them on bail and you can't keep them in $20,000 per person per annum prisons. And it certainly means that you can't ban cops from using their damned gray matter when it comes to making a guess that the 18 Hispanics in the white van headed north on I-25 at 80 miles an hour, none of whom speaks a lick of English, may just possibly, perhaps, potentially not be legal residents, while the Chevy Armada full of a dozen blonde kids dressed in baseball uniforms might very well be legit.

The bottom line is this: Mexico and probably a host of other unfriendly nations have declared war on the United States via non-traditional means. And those means, quite simply, are immigration. Every last damn thing the Mexican government has done in regards to illegal immigration signals "WAR" as its intent. All Congress needs to do is to recognize that fact and declare war back and then we can treat illegal immigrants like what they are: invaders.

Mark:"I guess this is just Hitler's Revenge. The man and his regime slaughtered 6 million Jews and now the countries who fought him to the death are held to blame"

Well Switzerland was neutral in WW2 of course, and like Sweden was within the Nazi sphere of influence.

Overall, the countries where cultural Marxism has laid the deepest roots seem to be the Protestant ones of northern Europe, whether they were pro, anti or neutral the Nazis - Britain, Denmark (bit of a flip since the Mohammed cartoons), Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, northern Germany, possibly Finland.

This is archetypal new left smear-mongering: equivocation, slippery slopes and false dilemmas, all to make sensible policy sound like the express to mass murder.And with the same goal: destruction of successful societies. It is the existence of government schools which eventually spawns this, since they need aggression to grow, and have propaganda machinery potential of great magnitude, a capacity which tends to get used. Successful societies are proportionally less amenable to power-greed and pose obstacles more effectively to freedom-for-aggression, but the government schools' agenda has to work towards power accumulation and freedom-for-aggression.

Switzerland was not very neutral, any more than Sweden was. Among other things the Swiss refused entry to any number of Jews (who inconveniently happened to be Swiss citizens) and of course, withheld the money due survivors from insurance policies and bank deposits.

But they did not enthusiastically round up Jews for deportation like the French and Dutch did. Though each of those nations had the SS and Gestapo to concentrate their minds. Something the Swiss lacked. [The Bulgarians, hard-core fascists as they were, saved more of their Jews as a percentage of the pre-War population than any other nation. Strange.] Even the Greeks could put aside fighting Nazis to assist them in finding Jews for the Concentration Camps.

All that being said, Switzerland is a small country. One that runs on kin-language-culture networks and has since the 1200's or so. It has obviously worked for the Swiss. As unromantic as they might be, they have build a modern, world-class nation quite the equal of any on the planet in the wealth and living standard of it's people.

At 20% of the population, that's simply too much of (poor) immigrants crowding out available resources. Most of Switzerland's land is not very habitable. Being so mountainous and all.

I'm sure being called racist and other names hurt so the governments decided it was easier to simply let people in. And now they have an ugly choice.

Eventually use force and crack the heck down on immigrants of all stripes to preserve Switzerland as it was, or see the land turned into North Africa with snow. Too many poor people, who don't share language, culture, family ties, and deep-rooted social ties will destroy a small country like that.

Getting rid of immigrants seems an electoral winner. I doubt siccing the EU or UN on Switzerland in the aftermath will do anything other than produce a good laugh for all concerned.

And it's funny how the same people will lecture the world endlessly on the need to preserve Bhutan or some other tribal hell-hole as a "pure" nation untouched by the outside world. The UN and EU would shriek and moan if the Swiss all moved en-masse to Bhutan and demanded an end to Buddhist god-king worship, the monarchy, and wanted to cut down the forests for really good cogged railroads and cows, chocolate factories and watch factories.

Are we entirely sure that this is a good example of Godwin's Law? Because as Anon 9/02/2007 10:34 PM states above, this is specifically a "corruption of blood" practice.

I hope I don't sound like playing the devil's advocate but if there's any fair comparison to the Nazi practice, this must be it.

I invite all commenters to consider: the law is not about whether the state of Switzerland has any authority to deport aliens. It already does. Nor is it about whether Switzerland has any right to decide who immigrates there, or to monitor whether they assimilate and become law-abiding, etc. etc. The proposal is specific: it says that if a kid, say a 16-year old, commits a crime -- such as wounding someone, or even engaging in credit card theft -- he AND his relatives will be deported.

Welcome back the middle ages.

The thing is, you, of all people, have been drumming the "nature over nurture" argument for years, Steve, emphasizing that any parent who has two or more children knows how little "nurture" can achieve. I personally know a very decent and law abiding family, with no history of crime -- father engineer, mother doctor -- and one of their sons ended up a drug-addict and killed someone, at the age of 17, and is doing time for 20 years now. What if they were immigrants, settled in Switzerland for 20 years and this had happened there?

If Switzerland doesn't want aliens -- and it has every right not to -- the proper way to express that desire is to not let them in in the first place.

As to the argument why a country's laws -- and the protections accorded by it -- apply to aliens in the land, as well, that is neither a peculiarity of the US, nor just a "liberal whim." First of all, the argument "I wasn't there when they voted it" is childish, to say the least. Perhaps that gentleman also doesn't like that we use the word "gentleman" instead of "wqersdlkhxxxx1" because he wasn't there when it was made up. Almost all of culture and tradition has happened when we weren't there. Second, imagine the floodgates to open once you lift that. That means, if somebody -- say a Frenchman or a Dutchman -- gets murdered while in the US, we'll say "tough luck." A great opportunity for people to murder anyone they want and claim that heck, he was a foreigner.

The lousier this immigration/multiculturalism issue gets, the more corruption of the worst kind crawls into the West: the corruption of atavisms raising from the dead, millennia old ghosts of barbarous traditions whose coffins the West's elders had thought they had nailed being resurrected, with the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition that took a millennium to evolve (probably the best of its kind in the world) being dumped, and all this just to get even with those darned "shitskins."

The proper way to express the desire to not have aliens is not to warp legal advances that cost Europe millions of deaths but to use the legitimate route: a sovereign nation has no obligation to allow aliens into its territory, or to tolerate trespassing of its borders, or to allow non-citizens to linger in when they break the law.

Well Switzerland was neutral in WW2 of course, and like Sweden was within the Nazi sphere of influence.

Switzerland during WW2 was a tiny country surrounded by hostile powers doing its best to survive, using both its neutrality as well as its nature-given defenses. No law of man or nature required them to openly oppose Nazi Germany.

Some people seem to think that Britain was immoral for not intervening in Hitler's rise earlier. Apparently "morality" dictates that barely 20 years after losing half of one generation of young men in war they had a moral obligation to lose another generation in order to save another group of people (that is Jews). Britain, too, had no such obligation. Their decision may have been unwise, but it was by no means immoral.

As for cultural Marxism - McCarthyism is alive and well in the US. It took six years for Ward "little Eichmanns" Churchill to lose his job, and Nicholas "million Mogadishus" de Genova is still employed at Columbia, as are convicted murderers/Weather Underground terrorists Bernardine Dorhn and Bill Ayers at Northwestern and UIC, repectively. If they were VDare writers or Klan members you'd need a stopwatch to measure how long it'd take them to get fired.

anon 8:43 am:"As for cultural Marxism - McCarthyism is alive and well in the US. It took six years for Ward "little Eichmanns" Churchill to lose his job, and Nicholas "million Mogadishus" de Genova is still employed at Columbia, as are convicted murderers/Weather Underground terrorists Bernardine Dorhn and Bill Ayers at Northwestern and UIC, repectively. If they were VDare writers or Klan members you'd need a stopwatch to measure how long it'd take them to get fired.

Cultural Marxism? Indeed."

I certainly agree - but note that the USA was founded by Protestant north Europeans and its culture is still primarily Protestant-north-European. Marxism and cultural Marxism were developed in such societies (England, Germany, USA) and targetted at the destruction of such societies. c-M does not seem to have nearly as deep roots in eg the Mediterranean nations.

Mark, this article has nothing to do with illegals. It's about deporting legal green card immigrants because their kids screw up.

Yep, and it's also about Switzerland. But why talk about Switzerland? None of us live there. And then you yourself are imposing the American debate on Switzerland by referring to legal immigrants as posessing "green cards."

It seems to be generally accepted that a nation should be free to deport anyone who is not a citizen, legally present or not.

In determining whether Switzerland (or the US) should accept immigrants from a particular country, probably the first, best place to start is to ask quite simply: "Would we be welcome to immigrate to their country AS IS?"

Tommy's Quality of Life Rule #1: The vast majority of a nation's population can be law-abiding yet that country can still be classified as a crime-infested hellhole. Take Colombia, for example...

Indeed.

Typically what percentage of whites engage in regular criminal behavior? Let's assume 1%. That means that the "overwhelming majority" aren't criminal, but 1% still are.

Now for blacks? Say it's 5%. That still, of course, means that the "overwhleming majority" of blacks are honest BUT...you've just increased the crime rate five-fold. In such conditions, tolerance of misbehavior will increase even more, since even more people (practically everyone) is now related to or associated with a criminal (or corrupt government official).

If Switzerland doesn't want aliens -- and it has every right not to -- the proper way to express that desire is to not let them in in the first place.

There's no statute of limitations on the right to correct mistakes.

First of all, the argument "I wasn't there when they voted it" is childish, to say the least.

[...]

Almost all of culture and tradition has happened when we weren't there.

That's not the argument. The argument is that a government doesn't have the right to race-replace its people. The whole "will of the people" thing is a sham, anyway, since said "will" is always based upon lies; no people will choose suicide if it's presented honestly (which is why race-replacement is never presented honestly).

Second, imagine the floodgates to open once you lift that. That means, if somebody -- say a Frenchman or a Dutchman -- gets murdered while in the US, we'll say "tough luck." A great opportunity for people to murder anyone they want and claim that heck, he was a foreigner.

Clearly this is a slippery slope fallacy (if not an outright non sequitur).

Glad to hear that Switzerland is still the last country on earth where citizens have actually a say in public matters. The USA also used to be a republic.

Yeah, they're to be envied. "Plebiscite" and "referendum" might as well be Swahili words as far as most "Liberal Democracies" are concerned.

Mark, this article has nothing to do with illegals. It's about deporting legal green card immigrants because their kids screw up.

I think, at the very least, the press and the liberals and everybody else in the west should back off the Swiss until the Israelis are sorted out for their much harsher collective punishments.

Tommy's Quality of Life Rule #1

Never mind the fact that the twit warned against generalizations and made one in the same breath.

I certainly agree - but note that the USA was founded by Protestant north Europeans and its culture is still primarily Protestant-north-European. Marxism and cultural Marxism were developed in such societies (England, Germany, USA) and targetted at the destruction of such societies. c-M does not seem to have nearly as deep roots in eg the Mediterranean nations. - sn

The Protestant/North European character of Anglo-American politics is rapidly approaching its end stage. It will be dead within three decades, mostly thanks to massive uncontrolled immigration.

As for cultural Marxism, its roots were in economic Marxism, and Marxism was strong in northern Europe because that's where the industrial revolution succeeded most fully. Add to that the fact that these societies were fairly tolerant of others historically and brought in lots of outsiders during the industrial revolution to feed the fires of industry.

And note that it was (and is) the outsiders who have been the most vigorous proponents of radical Marxist politics. Marx and Engels, of course, were Jews. A disproportionate number of Anarchists were Eastern Europeans (many of whom were deported by J. Edgar Hoover). WASPs (all WASPs, not just Boston Brahmins) are relatively rare amongst cultural Marxists in general and even less so amongst its most ardent proponents.

Western Civilization has yet to develop the antibodies to these enemies to its existence, but it is quite certain that will need to happen, and quickly, if we are to survive. Perhaps it will only happen when life gets intolerable enough to force people to take action, preferably of the political kind.

When the myth of white guilt can no longer be sustained, it will happen - if it still can.

What the left worries about here is that if the Swiss manage to do this, it will embolden, nay, it will empower other similar thinking groups in other European countries.

The first European country to expel its Muslims will be like the falling of a domino. It will soon spread everywhere else (not least of all because of the riots that will break out all over Europe). My wager is on one of the smaller countries - Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, or Belgium.

"It's certainly no coincidence that the People's Party launched this initiative before the elections," said Oliver Geden, a political scientist at the Berlin Institute for International and Security Affairs.

Yeah, because, ya know, God forbid elections be about issues of consequence. Best to instead get the voters riled up about things like flag burning or school prayer or gay marriage or the minimum wage or school uniforms or V-chips in your TV.

Switzerland is known for a number of things, like the St. Bernard dog, the cuckoo clock, the Swiss army knife, and my all-time favourite the Brown Swiss cow. Now the country is making news for another reason: a proposed law that would deport immigrant families if their child were convicted of a violent crime, drug offence, or benefits fraud (see story at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070901/ap_on_re_eu/switzerland_deportation_campaign). The bill is being presented by the nationalist Swiss People's Party. If the party collects enough signatures in its favour, a referendum will be held on the bill and it could become law.

The proposal has, not surprisingly, been described as racist. First off was the campaign poster showing three white sheep kicking out a black sheep over the words, in German, “For security.” While the term “black sheep” as in “black sheep of the family” generally does not have any racial connotations, critics charge that this particular sheep conjures up images of dark-skinned criminals. In 2004 the Swiss People's Party used a poster depicting black hands reaching into a pot filled with Swiss passports in a – successful – bid to restrict immigration to the country. The party has also proposed a ban on the construction of minaret towers alongside mosques. On the other hand, it is difficult to tell whether the group is racist per se, that is, in the sense of believing that Whites are superior to members of other races and should receive preferential treatment. For example, the party has called for the cancellation of Swiss aid to Eastern Europe, a region where nearly all the inhabitants are White.

Ueli Maurer, president of the Swiss People's Party, does not seem too perturbed by this criticism. He reports that there have been “no complaints” about his proposal and expresses confidence that “as soon as the first ten families and their children have been expelled from the country, then things will get better at a stroke.” Furthermore, the party claims that foreigners, who constitute roughly a fifth of Switzerland's population, are four times more likely to become involved in crime than are Swiss nationals. According to an official study conducted by the Federal Foreigners' Commission, non-citizens are in fact overrepresented in violent offences.

The bill has been attacked as well on the grounds that it hearkens back to the Nazi practice of “Sippenhaft” (kin liability) whereby a criminal's family members were punished alongside the offender him- or herself for the crime in question. On one hand, the idea that an individual might be held accountable and made to pay for a relative's crime goes against our sense of justice. Even the supposedly wrathful God of the Old Testament states that “Parents must not be put to death for the crimes of their children, and children must not be put to death for the crimes of their parents.” Though deportation rarely leads to death, the substance of the argument remains the same.

Nonetheless, many of us feel that at a moral if not legal level parents are responsible to a certain extent for the conduct of their children. As another Biblical saying goes, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Certainly most people would recognize some mitigating circumstances. For instance, few would entirely blame the adoptive parents of a teenager born with fetal alcohol syndrome for an offence he or she might not even be aware of having committed. The vast majority of parents, though, have at least some control over how their sons and daughters turn out.

Another issue raised by the Swiss People's Party's bill deals with the rights of non-citizens when they commit crimes in their country of residence. Even individuals such as myself who would probably oppose a law that penalized parents for the misdeeds of their offspring might agree there is a strong case to be made that non-nationals guilty of serious offences in their adopted nations forfeit their right to continue living there. Canada faced this dilemma twice in 1994 and again in 2005. In separate incidents, Georgina Leimonis, police officer Todd Baylis, and Jane Creba were killed by people who had been ordered deported from Canada after committing violent crimes here. In the aftermath of the murders, some legal experts, professors and newspaper columnists (like the Globe and Mail's Michael Valpy) argued that deporting the offenders in question would be too harsh because they had spent most of their childhoods in Canada, the “only country they knew.” They simply had never become Canadian citizens. One might counter that citizenship is like marriage: if you take the step of obtaining citizenship of a particular country, you are entitled to certain rights and protections that those who decline to do so are not, just like, as I wrote in a previous article, married couples should enjoy privileges that their common-law counterparts do not. Therefore by not making an effort to get the proper papers, the killers of the three above-mentioned individuals lose the legal as well as moral right to stay in this country. (Of course citizens who commit crimes should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.) In this respect the Swiss proposal to deport immigrants – though not their families – who fail to abide by the laws of the land in which they reside would probably not strike most people as a great injustice.

" 'Second, imagine the floodgates to open once you lift that. That means, if somebody -- say a Frenchman or a Dutchman -- gets murdered while in the US, we'll say "tough luck." A great opportunity for people to murder anyone they want and claim that heck, he was a foreigner.'

Clearly this is a slippery slope fallacy (if not an outright non sequitur)."

It wasn't a non sequitur because J.D. was replying to someone (Mark) who claimed it was an invention of modern liberal judges that due process rights applied to non-citizens and included even the right to freedom from summary murder in this statement.

Of course a government has no right to race-replace its people. My argument wasn't intended as a cover-up for that. Rather, we cannot deal with our governments being co-opted by people with dual loyalties, using that government to race-replace us by wrecking the foundations of our nation and constitution by claiming "I wasn't there when [the law being usurped by dual loyalists] was voted into a law." It's self-destructive.

As for the "slippery slope fallacy," I'd appreciate if you could show me how that is one as well as how it is a non-sequitur. What I present is the basic template for all legal thinking -- assuming by "legal" we don't mean situations where the constituency is at most 30 people, and they all share the same village and know each other. How do you implement a law where you can institute the principle that the protection that the national law accords does not extend to foreigners? How do you event practice that in real life? Do policemen, when they see someone robbing someone and rush for help, stop and check the victim's citizenship status first, and when they discover that he is an alien, let the perpetrators go?

Reactions like yours generally give the impression that by "race," what is meant is a place like a village where everybody is everybody's "brother" or something, and "alien" stands for a bunch of "bandits" who attack the village regularly and shake it down. I'm afraid societies are a bit more complicated than that.

Anon 8:43 -- No argument. I merely not that Switzerland came out of the war with a reputation for cruelty and profiting from Nazi atrocities. The emotional charges hurled against the Swiss Party and the people who back them would not resonate if Swiss banks and insurers in particular did not keep Holocaust victims money and not pay out to survivors.

Something even Swedish Banks managed to avoid. [If you wanted a simple explantion for the Holocaust it would be the opportunity to loot with impunity a helpless population and commit the most depraved and sadistic atrocities on them to satisfy degraded and debauched appetites. Moral: don't be helpless, EVER.]

Reread what I wrote. The Swiss did not cover themselves with glory but did better than some. But the emotional aspects of cruel and cold Swiss bankers for half a century denying life insurance and bank accounts to survivors or relatives runs strong and THAT history of bad acts is exactly what opponents of attempts to reduce the effects of immigration are counting on.

A full twenty percent of Switzerland is immigrants? Astonishing.

Cultural Marxism is just as rampant in Catholic Societies. Evidence: Zapatero, Prodi, Spanish and Italian fertility figures. Around 1.1 or so. They are destroying themselves even more quickly than the Northern Protestants who at least fight back. No one in Spain or Italy has any idea of what to do with tidal wave of illegal (mostly North African Muslims) coming in. Nor what to do when raiding parties and annexation inevitably take place (against weak and ineffectual governments and peoples).

Immigrants illegal or otherwise of course are used by governments (usually Leftist) as shock troops against their own people.

Marx and Engels were German Jews Mark. Who's families had lived in Germany for centuries. As German as Nietchze, Wagner, Heine, and Bismarck. You could hardly call them Zionists. Holland is firmly in the grip of Leftists who depend on Muslim votes. They want MORE of them and are arguing that Sharia is not that bad. Like England, any Dutch who can are leaving.

Gay Marriage? Just another wedge for Polygamy. In Toronto there have been IIRC about six gay marriages. About several hundred polygamous ones.

"WASPs (all WASPs, not just Boston Brahmins) are relatively rare amongst cultural Marxists in general and even less so amongst its most ardent proponents.

Western Civilization has yet to develop the antibodies to these enemies to its existence..."

Yes - it's more that WASP societies lack antibodies to the c-M virus, whereas Catholic or Orthodox cultures seem much more resistant. Conversely Catholic & Orthodox societies were/are much more vulnerable to other totalitarian ideologies like fascism and communism. My impression is that c-M was developed specifically in response to the failure of communism in WASP societies, in order to target their vulnerabilities (such as their individualistic ethos).

The emotional charges hurled against the Swiss Party and the people who back them would not resonate if Swiss banks and insurers in particular did not keep Holocaust victims money and not pay out to survivors.

Read Norman Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry. It was the Jews who robbed the Swiss, not the Swiss who robbed the Jews.

We will see how this all plays out in Europe. The most Islamists can ever do to the US is detonate a few dirty bombs or (with the aid of Iran or Russia) nuke a city or two. They cannot invade, they cannot take us. Americans are tough people (heavily armed) and far away from the accursed mess called the Mid East.

What seems more ominous is that Islamists are present in large numbers in France, Britain and other places. Oodles of them, and most are tough working class Muslims with enough educated doctors and such to cook up functional conspiracies. Once the Islamists figure out that they can't take the US, they might use Europe as a collective hostage. You know, "Do what I say or your sissy friend gets it."

And maybe, good riddance. We have our Monroe Doctrine that we can go back to anytime we want. This "Middle East" conflict has to end somehow. Maybe it's going to be the US nukes Iran, Iran and friends nuke whomever, and the US pulls out and closes its doors for a good while.

One other problem with applying family deportation to the US is that, unlike in Switzerland, the teenagers would probably be anchor baby US citizens. Even if this is changed, it would not be retroactive, and probably the children of legal immigrants would still be citizens.

Karl Marx (like Felix Mendelssohn and Benjamin Disraeli) was baptized as a child, though not as an infant, and thereafter raised a Christian and (unlike Mendelssohn and Disraeli) expressed contempt for Jews in his writings. I'm not sure Engels was Jewish at all. Internet research is inconclusive; Marx's Wikipedia entry discusses his religious background in detail, but Engels's entry simply says he was the son of a "German textile manufacturer."

I almost missed this post because it didnt appear in the RSS feed for some reason. I say Sippenhaft is a great idea and I wish it wasnt associated with the Nazis.

Switzerland certainly cant be 20 percent nonwhite, though. I imagine that the 20% of Swiss that is immigrants is made up largely of whites from Eastern Europe rather than Middle Easterners and Africans.

Found at last: From a 2004 edition of The Communist Manifesto edited by L.M. Findlay, p. 18, available online via Google Books: "Engels came from a strict and devout Pietistic (i.e., reformed Lutheran) family whose values were shaped by many of their immediate neighours in Barmen (modern Wuppertal)." There is no mention of any Jewish background, whereas with Marx Findlay mentions the ethnically Jewish background and "long tradition of rabbis on both sides of his family."

My favorite Groucho Marx song was the one he sang as Prof Wagstaff in Horsefeathers:"Whatever It Is,I'm Against It."Now you're talking about deporting foreigners,about people having some control over their own countries? Whatever it is,I'm FOR it!

Engels was of gentile German stock. Marx wrote an article titled "On the Jewish Question."

Quote: "Emancipation from haggling and from money, i.e. from practical, real Judaism, would be the same as the self-emancipation of our age."

"[M]oney has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian peoples. The Jews have emancipated themselves in so far as the Christians have become Jews."

"For example, ... the pious and politically free inhabitant of New England is a kind of Lacoon who does not make even the slighest effort to free himself from the snakes that are choking him. Mammon is his idol and he prays to him not only with his lips but with all the power of his body and his soul. For him the world is nothing but a Stock Exchange..."

One other problem with applying family deportation to the US is that, unlike in Switzerland, the teenagers would probably be anchor baby US citizens.

The US government has never seemed to have a problem twisting or "reinterpreting" a Constitutional clause when it becomes necessary or desireable (even if only by the elites). What's been done for other matters could easily be done for issues of citizenship, and could most certainly be done for those minor children of illegals who may under current law be technically considered "citizens."

Please, this is defeatist nonsense. There are no countries "lost" to the Muslims in Europe besides perhaps the Kosovo province situation (thanks to Clinton and his ghouls).

There is, though, a drumbeat of impending doom regarding Europe that is, in the sense of troop rallying, part of the healthy reaction to the invasion -- but it doesn't mean that doom is actually impending. Once the conflict becomes military, paramilitary, guerrilla, or even just homicidal street battles, the Muslims will be run off or annihilated.

The reasons for this are deeply ingrained in the culture of the two populations. Remember how the Israeli general answered Q: What is the secret to success on the battlefield? A: Fight Muslims.

The only chance for the Umma is to maintain the absurd status quo where a small number of Euros ally with the Muslims to administer the invasion and also keep the other Euros suppressed. This model is already under tremendous stress right now in 2007 and will be impossible to maintain in the years to come.

It is important to remember how much the conventional wisdom has changed in just the past few years in Europe and America. Many web commenters expect things to change overnight. The fact is that important psychological changes are pulsing through the Western populations. It is happening rapidly, just not overnight.

I am sick of the defeatism and the writing-off of Europe and the USA to various third-world invaders. In order to make that scenario pan out you must discount the historical record and believe, like a true Marxist, that we have reached the End of History.

People out there thinking that "Bolsheviks" will usher in an age of Muslim anarcho-tyranny to Europe, and some sort of Mestizo anarcho-tyranny in the USA, are overly pessimistic. Occam's Razor strongly suggests that current events are setting the stage for assorted white European maniac regimes to emerge from economic ruin.

The black female author who is the subject of Steve's other posting is likely correct in her views, but she is off base as to who the new leaders will be. She doesn't understand the widespread psychological reversals that result from a true economic collapse.

anon:"The only chance for the Umma is to maintain the absurd status quo where a small number of Euros ally with the Muslims to administer the invasion and also keep the other Euros suppressed. This model is already under tremendous stress right now in 2007 and will be impossible to maintain in the years to come. "

I hope you're right, but the Euro elite are powerful and tyrannical. This morning on BBC Radio 4, news that that the UK Labour govt is favourably considering a proposal for compulsory DNA harvesting of the entire UK population. The reason? It's unfair to ethnic minorities that we only take the DNA from criminals & suspects - 'ethnic profiling/over representation', so 'Human Rights' requires we take it from everyone. They use this kind of argument all the time.

This isn't going to be a zero sum game in Europe or the US. 20% isn't going to overrun 80%. But at the same time, 20% is also not going to be annihilated or deported and left with nothing. Even the tiny fraction of Jews in Germany got more than nothing. Once the dust cleared from WW2, Jewish people got Israel and a large measure of official respect.

Same goes for the US. The USA is not going to become Mexifornia or Greater Aztlan. But by the same token, it's not going to look like a suburb of medieval London either.

However things happen, by slow legislation and social adjustment or by open conflict, there will be some middle ground when all is said and done. Once you have that many people filling up a space, they aren't going to vanish overnight or submit to whatever people unilaterally "decide" should happen.

But the more people fail to realize this is not unilateral, the more likely that this will be settled by open conflict. For everyone who thinks this should be settled by force, remember there are large Latin gangs with grassroots bases and ties to guerrilla groups south of the border.

But, a big "but." This is not happening in abstract virtual reality "everywhere" as alarmists seem to imagine. Mexicans are in certain places: SoCal, Texas, Arizona, Nevada. White Florida Cubans do not count. NewRicans also do not count.

I say Sippenhaft is a great idea and I wish it wasnt associated with the Nazis.

Interesting approach. You may want to revise that, though.

There are quite a few things associated with the Nazis. We can divide them into three:

i) things the Nazis invented because... well, because there's no genetic entity like "Nazi;" they happened to be Germans; this includes things like the U-boat or the jet engine. I've never heard anyone say "too bad it's associated with the Nazis, let's not use the jet engine;"

ii) things syllogistically but artificially associated with the Nazis for smear -- what Derbyshire called the "argumentum hitlerum" fallacy: 1- Hitler was a Nazi psychopath; 2- Hitler was a vegetarian; 3- Ergo: those who are vegetarians are latent Nazis. This is pretty much the way the Left pushes countless inanities as proof of evil -- eugenics being one of the first among them. The trouble is, this is the most widespread propaganda tool -- guilt by association;

iii) things that the Nazis did which were... let's be honest, pretty unsavory; I mean, by the above logic, we can also say "I say concentration camps is a great idea and I wish it wasnt associated with the Nazis." Doens't sound very convincing, does it.

But wait: the fact of the matter is, concentration camps are not exclusively associated with the Nazis. It's also associated with... the Soviets, Americans (in WWII), the Japanese (on POWs in WWII)... it's best that I don't list all the instances of this fond technique of implementing ethnic cleansing.

Is it entirely wrong to ethnically cleanse? Well, that depends on how you do it, I guess. But before that, let's go back to "corruption of blood."

Hmmm, why does this sound familiar? Drats, I guess I figured. This is the PASHTUN way of dealing with the problem: Your nephew looks at the ankle of my niece, I declare blood feud on your clan; whoever out-shoots the other is morally superior.

OK, then what is the difference between the Nazis and the Pashtun? One thing that comes to mind immediately -- to the discerning eye -- is that although "corruption of blood" practice is correlated with both, things like inventing the jet engine is not terribly correlated with the Pashtun. So, the AND relation (disjunction) being stronger than the OR relation (conjunction), I guess for something to be legitimately assoicated with Nazi-ness: it would have to be...

i) that it involve a society with a very high civilization building capability, AND

ii) that it involve clash of interests between two or more partly-inbred extended families, AND

iii) that it be a... PRIMITIVE, ATAVISTIC solution.

The thing that I love most when people start blowing off steam in internet fora like this is how everyone loves phrases like "Rome razed the land of such-and-such tribe to the ground; let's do the same and kill all these [insert your fond tribe of ethnic hatred here]," etc. The persistent problem of "scale" or "magnitude" never seems to register. (There's another favorite: the "I'd rather be feared than loved" line, which is an unmistakable sign that the commentor has no children to feed, and has absolutely no idea what "cost" means.) It's as if these people have totally forgotten that when Rome did the alleged razing to the ground of that alleged tribe, the armies were something like 10,000 strong, and that tribe's population itself was no more than 25,000. And razing another tribe to the ground didn't mean trillions of dollars worth of human resources.

Anybody familiar with the "bubble sort" algorithm case of classical computer science knows that what any fool can devise as a solution to sorting seems to work for say 100 items but crawls to a halt right when you reach an item count of 1,000 (doesn't even have to be 100,000 or million). In computer-speak, such solutions DON'T SCALE. Conversely, algorithms designed to be efficient for sorting millions of items (e.g. "quicksort") may even be a bit slow at 100 items, appear disappointing if the list is already sorted, but perform incredibly well when it is a million unsorted items.

Maybe we can use the same analogy for "atavism" when it comes to legality and policies. A society like the Germans suffered terrible consequences due to the "final solution" because their good sense seems to have been eclipsed in the desperation of the Big Depression, the justified fear of Communism and the horrors of it emanating from the Ukraine, and the crushing sense of defeat and betrayal against the other European powers. They seem to have succumbed to a moronically PRIMITIVE, ATAVISTIC idea: "Let's put all of them on trains, ship them to concentration camps, and kill them. Jolly good idea. We may have to invade Europe in the process, but what's fifty trillion dollars lost and fifty million dead for such a noble cause."

If you're one of those frustrated because you believe the legal protection the Anglo-Saxon (or European) legal system provides to those "shitskins" is too much, sit down and breathe deeply for at least five minutes before you embark on your umpteenth beer-table let's-be-tough-as-nails macho crap talk: chances are, your bright ideas (like "corruption of blood should get these shits outa here") has a very high likelihood of being PRIMITIVE and ATAVISTIC -- and hardly efficient even with low numbers. Complex societies need solutions that SCALE WELL, first and foremost. Not dumb ones springing out of your blind and primitive -- and therefore LOW TECH -- instincts while you're at your favorite chestbeating session.

There's nothing wrong with your legal system -- it took millennia to evolve, and it is the best on the face of the earth. The problem is simple: THE EXISTING LAWS ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED. The answer to why that is so contains all the clues: because YOUR OLIGARCHS ARE TERRIBLY ENJOYING THE FRUITS OF IT.

(And such social environments are unfortunately breeding grounds for opportunistic virii like those tough-talking "right-wing" politicians in Europe who want to score quick points with these idiotic suggestions. One of your politicians, in the wake of 9/11 got you into a quagmire down in the Futile Crescent through exactly the same process. He even said what he relied on once: "In every election, there are some people you can fool all the time; these are the ones you want to concentrate on." He should have said "you can fool some people all the time, and all the people some time, and these are pretty good odds.")

If you believe the aliens in Switzerland (and no, they're not 20%; you can bet that about 75% of those foreigners are Europeans, most probably the super rich) are there because they are all privates and sergeants in Al Qaidah's universal army, you have a very twisted vision of what is wrong with massive and/or illegal immigration, and most probably you're suffering from what can be called the "neocon theory of society:" all humans are walking automatons of ideological convictions. Most probably they are there because they are instinctively doing what any animal does: improve their survival chances by moving to a place where the environment is way better than what their brethren are capable of building. Acting on this motivation in itself is not a crime, and you will NOT deter it by "corruption of blood" nonsense. It is the fault of the European oligarchs and socialists who planted them there (although to them it's a feature, not a bug). You will not get these "Les Misérables" out by Pashtun technology.

The price of trying to implement the most radical Pashtun tech in the midst of a Germanic modern civilization is the disaster that left Europe in total shambles 60 years ago. Don't tell me you're eager to go down the same path once again, only this time with diluted versions of it.

"Well, in eighteen and fourteen we took a little tripalong with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.We took a little bacon and we took a little beans,And we caught the bloody British near the town of New Orleans.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.We fired once more and they began to runnin'down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, I see'd Mars Jackson walkin down the streettalkin' to a pirate by the name of Jean Lafayette [pronounced La-feet]He gave Jean a drink that he brung from Tennesseeand the pirate said he'd help us drive the British in the sea.

The French said Andrew, you'd better run,for Packingham's a comin' with a bullet in his gun.Old Hickory said he didn't give a dang,he's gonna whip the britches off of Colonel Packingham.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.We fired once more and they began to runnin'down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, we looked down the river and we see'd the British come,and there must have been a hundred of 'em beatin' on the drum.They stepped so high and they made their bugles ringwhile we stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing.

Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surpriseif we didn't fire a musket til we looked 'em in the eyes.We held our fire til we see'd their faces well,then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave a yell.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.We fired once more and they began to runnin'down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, we fired our cannon til the barrel melted down,so we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round.We filled his head with cannon balls and powdered his behind,and when they tetched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.

We'll march back home but we'll never be contenttill we make Old Hickory the people's President.And every time we think about the bacon and the beans,we'll think about the fun we had way down in New Orleans.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin,But there wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.We fired once more and they began to runnin'down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, they ran through the briars and they ran through the bramblesAnd they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.They ran so fast the hounds couldn't catch 'emdown the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.But there wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.We fired once more and they began to runnin'down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico."

If Switzerland doesn't want aliens -- and it has every right not to -- the proper way to express that desire is to not let them in in the first place.

Which immigrants does Switzerland have the right to kick out, and which doesn't it have the right to kick out?

First, it obviously has the right to kick out illegal immigrants.

Maybe that right isn't obvious to the aforementioned cultural Marxists, but it's obvious to us and to most people in Europe and America.

Second, I'd say it has the right to kick out legal immigrants who aren't yet citizens - for any reason.

Third, it has the right to kick out naturalized citizens who came by their citizenship through fraud.(The US sometimes does this - though it seems like it's only in the case of former Nazis.)

Fourth, I'd say it has the right to expel naturalized citizens who have failed to integrate into Swiss society. You can start with those you have yet to learn one of the official languages, and continue with those who have satellite dishes peering out above their rooflines.

"I think more specifically it was Organised Jewry that rec'd the spoils as countless news articles on the impoverishment of 'survivors' in Israel and elsewhere shows.."

Does my mother count as "organized Jewry"? Because she's receiving some "spoils": approximately $260 per month (converted from euros, so it will vary) from German Social Security for the slave labor my late father, a "survivor", was forced to perform for German industry when he was in the Budzyn concentration camp. If it makes you happy, although my father was a "survivor", his father wasn't: he is buried in a mass grave with a few hundred other members of "Organized Jewry".

"Let's put all of them on trains, ship them to concentration camps, and kill them. Jolly good idea. We may have to invade Europe in the process, but what's fifty trillion dollars lost and fifty million dead for such a noble cause."

The guy (idiotically) writes as if this were put to a popular vote, when it was the secret decision of one man. It also has nothing to do with the right of a democratic nation(Switzerland) to exclude and expel non-citizens by democratic means.

More Nazi Swiss collaboration revisionism by the mainstream media. It was the opposite actually. Hitler didn't dare send the Wehrmacht into the mountain valleys for fear the hundreds of mountain forts would make Swiss cheese out of them.

A good article on the subject that appeared in the Toronto Sun by Eric Margolis

WW II REVISIONISTS TURN ON THE SWISS

Machiavelli said of the Swiss, ‘they are the most armed, and the most free.’ In the summer of 1940, the German High Command had at least three active plans for outflanking France’s great chain of forts, the Maginot Line, by invading Switzerland. A month after the fall of France, in June, 1940, Hitler’s and Mussolini’s high commands prepared plan ‘von Menges,’ under which Germany would seize the northern two thirds of Switzerland, while Fascist Italy annexed the portion south of the Alps.

‘I will show those herdsmen and cheese-makers,’ Hitler vowed.

Far from bowing to German threats, as did most other European nations, Switzerland, which then had under 4 million inhabitants, mobilized 700,000 soldiers- one citizen in five. On 25 July, 1940, Swiss commander-in-chief, General Henri Guisan convoked his senior officers to the Rutli Meadow, where the Swiss Confederation, the world’s oldest democracy, was proclaimed in 1291.......cont http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/1999/03/ww_ii_revisioni.php

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.